|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Pope Francis' Extraordinary Synod Oct 2014
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
They are, but they were also the social context in which Jesus' teaching were first given and understood.
Now either the text of the bible is not the whole of the revealed truth and things have changed overtime - in which case you can make a strong case for remarriage on the basis of effectively pastoral principles - or it is and marriage ceremonies in church are a gilding of the lily and cohabitation is a sacramental marriage.
I'm more used to the language of covenant, than sacrament, DT. Registrars legalise, faith ceremonies solemnise, but essentially the couple marry each other. Insincere covenants are not worth the paper they are written on, or not written on, if you see what I mean. How does God see the promises, oversee the protection of the covenant, safeguard the commitment? In the end, regardless of our attempts to understand these matters, the answers to those questions are known to God better than they are known by us.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Enoch
1. marriage is for all, though there are some restrictions - in some countries you may only be married to one person at a time - in some countries you can only be married to a person of the opposite sex.
The Catholic church also has its rules about marriage and if the conditions are fulfilled then the marriage is classified as a sacramental marriage until it can be shown that it was not.
An extra complication in some countries,including
UK is that a Catholic marriage can also be counted as a marriage recognised by the State.
2. 'legalised coupling' is not a helpful way to describe a civil marriage.Some people would not see the legal ceremony as anything to do with 'coupling' Their 'coupling' can take place independent of any ceremony. In the UK coupling outside of marriage is not illegal.
3.You have it not got things right - what happens after the ceremony is equally part of the marriage
and can affect the validity of the marriage
(None of the sacraments are magic bubbles).
4.The Church does try to explain to prospective married couple what is meant by Christian marriage
5.Different rules have governed marriage ceremonies over the centuries.Since the couple are the ministers of the sacrament it has only been fairly recent - I think about 1918,but I may be wrong that a Catholic marriage has to be conducted (normally) in the presence of a minister of the Church.
6. No
7. Church teaches that the idea of indissolubility
of marriage derives from the words of Jesus
I'm not sure how dogmatic indissolubility reduces the dreadful heinousness of adultery nor just how dreadfully heinous adultery is.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The Church is entirely free to change its guidelines on who should be refused communion, and the burdens that are placed on those wanting to return to the practice of their baptismal faith after a period of non-practice.
It is, I suppose, entirely free to cease discouraging anyone whom it believes to be in a serious state of sin from receiving the Blessed Sacrament. But why would it do that? It holds that to receive the Bl. Sac. in such a state can very seriously damage the communicant. It's not mucking about - the Church really believes this. So, if the Church is right about this, it would be grossly negligent in its care for the faithful if it showed such spiritual and pastoral disregard.
And to what extent can someone who knows what the Church teaches about marriage and who wants to return to receiving the sacraments whilst continuing in a sexaul relationship with a subsequent spouse really be said to be "wanting to return to the practice of their baptismal faith"?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Standing by one's second (civil) marriage, however wrong it may have been to undertake it in the first place, may not be what the Church advises, but it seems pretty obvious that in these times this isn't the sort of sin that scandalizes the faithful, and shouldn't fall under the sort of misconduct which the Church should try to deal with by shaming the offender by refusal of communion at Mass.
You've got to be kidding! Do you really think that the prevalence of couples marrying, divorcing and re-marrying others without the sanction of the Church is not causing scandal to the faithful, i.e., causing a stumbling block to the adherence to Catholic teaching? Leading others to disregard or minimise the significance of the Church's teaching on marriage, and potentially leading them into sin, is pretty much a textbook definition of "causing scandal". What it doesn't seem to cause these days is much shock or moral consternation, but there's a big downside to that...
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Similarly, when the lapsed wish to return to full and active membership of the Church community, stipulating that they must abandon their second marriage in order to do so doesn't seem like the welcome offered to the prodigal son.
What do you want the Church to do? Pretend it doesn't believe that a second marriage may very well be adulterous? Pretend that receiving the sacraments in a state of serious sin is no biggie? If divorcees want to return to the of full and active membership of the Church that would include not continuing in sinful relations and/or not receing the sacraments whilst doing so. It's hard, hell yeah. But it's real. And it's honest. Short of fundamental doctrinal change, I can't see how the Church can allow herself to be seen to sanction such a "return" without conversion of life.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What do you want the Church to do? Pretend it doesn't believe that a second marriage may very well be adulterous? Pretend that receiving the sacraments in a state of serious sin is no biggie? If divorcees want to return to the of full and active membership of the Church that would include not continuing in sinful relations and/or not receing the sacraments whilst doing so. It's hard, hell yeah. But it's real. And it's honest. Short of fundamental doctrinal change, I can't see how the Church can allow herself to be seen to sanction such a "return" without conversion of life.
Sums it up very well, Chesterbelloc. It is hard for me to see much freedom of action there, either.
Re communion, it's normal within nonconformism to teach (and remind) that each person coming forward for communion needs to examine themselves i.e. the bread and the wine are offered freely but with the recognition that unworthy participation may harm the participant. I've never thought that through any further than my general understanding that those who muck around with participation in the life of the church for any reason run straight into the dangers of habitual, knowing, hypocrisy. Sincerity of engagement is the touchstone.
But I do not see how Catholicism could adopt that approach, given the different understandings of communion.
So that issue looks a bit locked. The willingness to be merciful is clearly there; the "yes but how" of that looks very problematic, without selling principles and that will not happen. Like IngoB said, the "paper trail" is there.
I don't see the same sort of lock applies to upping the priority and resource for marriage preparation, or reviewing annulment practices (rather than principles).
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't see the same sort of lock applies to upping the priority and resource for marriage preparation, or reviewing annulment practices (rather than principles).
I entirely agree, Barnabas.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't see the same sort of lock applies to upping the priority and resource for marriage preparation, or reviewing annulment practices
It goes without saying that a Synod on the family, must look at the dreadful state of marriage in the Western world, and that one of its biggest priorities needs to be preparing people properly for marriage, so that this problem should be less in the future. Also, the pope has said quite directly that he sees the annulment process in its present form as inadequate, so I think we can be sure that he'll make some changes there. But I disagree that nothing else could change.
In December Cardinal Walter Kapser another favourite of Pope Francis (though not of Pope Benedict) indicated that some divorced and remarried Catholics may, in certain circumstances , be permitted to receive communion. IMO he can only be referring to a greater use of the Internal Forum, which was quite widely used prior to its ban by the CDF in 1994.
Most people, sociopaths and the mentally challenged apart, have an innate sense of right and wrong, and their own state of culpability and sinfulness. So why shouldn't they, if the follow the two principles of the Internal Forum, which are to live a life of charity, and to avoid giving scandal, be allowed to receice communion? Perhaps some people genuinely believe thay can make their own peace with God irrespective of legalistic strictures. Personally I don't believe that all remarried divorcees are irredeemeble sinners. The Eucharist is medicine for the sick, which we all are. So they can acknowledge their mistakes, live, as far as possible a Christian life. It should be enough for God to know who comes to communion with the right internal disposition.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I may be behind hand on this issue, PaulTH, but isn't there more going on than the matter of the personal conscience of the would-be communicant?
Personal conscience cannot override a doctrinal view of persistent sin, can it? It's hardly just a matter of opinion. Or perhaps I misunderstand Cardinal Kapser?
Which is eminently possible, of course. But behaviour which is classified as known persistent sin creates a pastoral problem for the leadership of any congregation. It has for mine.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I don't think Barnabas is getting hold of the wrong end of the stick here, Paul. [Just how NT does that sound, BTW?]
In addition to which, can I ask precisely what you mean by "a greater use of the Internal Forum" as a solution to the problem? An answer to that question would clarify a lot for me.
What struck me about the article about H.E. Walter Cardinal Kasper you linked to was - perhaps not what you intended - how weak a case he seems to be presenting.
I have no idea who is and is not a "favourite" of our present Pontiff gloriously reigning. But I do know that Francis considers himself a loyal son of the Church which he leads. And I suspect that he hates as much as I do the deliberate use of his pontificate as a stick with which to beat Benedict's. Really, Paul - how edifying is that to anyone?
But back to Card. Kasper. The article you cite makes three things abundantly clear:
1. Kasper seems to reject either that (1) the Church's teaching that remarried people who have not sought annulments and who continue in full (inc. sexual) marital relations with their subsequent spouses may be in a state of serious sin, or (2) those in unresolved, ongoing serious sin ought to be counselled against receiving the sacraments.
2. That he holds this in defiance of perennial and current teaching from his "own" department, the CDF, whose prefect's recent affirmation of that teaching he has publicly criticised.
3. That: quote:
[t]he Catholic Church’s refusal to budge on Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics has cut into [German] Catholic revenues as thousands of Catholics in "irregular" situations have switched their affiliation on tax forms. The bishops have repeatedly complained of the loss of membership and blame the Church’s refusal to change teachings such as that on divorce, the reservation of priestly ordination to men and clerical celibacy. In 2012, the German bishops’ conference issued a statement that Catholics who did not pay the Church Tax would be refused the sacraments.
Think about that for a minute. The German bishops are all about giving Holy Communion to those who flout the Church's teachings on issues of sexual morality, etc. - but refuse it to those who won't pay the church tax...
4. Kasper, who promotes and predicts a change of praxis from a forthcoming Synod of bishops quote:
refused to accept the decision of a [2005] synod of bishops on the question, saying “It is a question that exists, and we have to reflect on it in order to be able to respond…Every bishop in every Western country recognizes that this is a grave problem.” Of the Synod’s conclusion that the practice of withholding Communion could not be changed, Kasper said it “is not the final result.”
Keep voting till the result changes, eh?
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Most people, sociopaths and the mentally challenged apart, have an innate sense of right and wrong, and their own state of culpability and sinfulness. So why shouldn't they, if the follow the two principles of the Internal Forum, which are to live a life of charity, and to avoid giving scandal, be allowed to receice communion? Perhaps some people genuinely believe thay can make their own peace with God irrespective of legalistic strictures. Personally I don't believe that all remarried divorcees are irredeemeble sinners. The Eucharist is medicine for the sick, which we all are. So they can acknowledge their mistakes, live, as far as possible a Christian life. It should be enough for God to know who comes to communion with the right internal disposition.
I think I've already addressed these issues. If you think I have not adequately answered the them from a Catholic perspective, by all means get back to me on that. Failing which I am tired and off to bed.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
This feels a sort of moribund equinine in its own right. Might we devote any attention to more innocuous developments such as priesting later vocation married men or creating certain female religious lay cardinals, or reviving an order of deaconesses who would not be within the tripartite ministry but who would function like deacons in many respects?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I'm assuming the survey questions (mentioned earlier in this thread) are meant to prepare for the topics discussed in the Synod. To skip past the dead horse issues of secular marriage, divorce remarriage and same sex marriage that have been discussed there's a set of questions on instruction of children of those unions.
Does anyone have any idea what the motivation for these questions are assuming there's no change in the policy towards these unions? I have a hard time seeing the "send us your children and we'll tell them your marriage is defective and you should break up" will play well, but it doesn't sound like there's room for any other alternative. Any ideas on how this might be addressed by the synod?
[ 09. February 2014, 01:48: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Though heavily involved in discussions here, I'm going to make an exception to the normal custom and make an straightforward Hosting clarification.
For the record, marriage and divorce are not Dead Horse topics. The DH topics are:
quote:
biblical inerrancy, homosexuality, the role of women in church and Christian households, creation and evolution, abortion, closed communion and bitching about church music.
-see DH guidelines by following the 10C's link.
There has been some discussion re the availability of communion to remarried divorcees. "Closed communion" (a rare Dead Horse these days) is not concerned primarily with communion restrictions based on perceived misconduct but on general denominational policies re non-members or members of other denominations. However, in view of the infrequency of the topic, I will check my perception of that with DH Hosts; meanwhile discussion on that subtopic can continue here.
The thread has steered clear of discussing homosexuality in the context of the coming Synod; please continue to do that.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 09. February 2014, 06:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
it is, I suppose, entirely free to cease discouraging anyone whom it believes to be in a serious state of sin from receiving the Blessed Sacrament. But why would it do that? It holds that to receive the Bl. Sac. in such a state can very seriously damage the communicant.
To hold that communion should be open to all would be a change of doctrine. To treat some circumstances of sin as more serious, and some as less serious, than previous practice, and to adjust the degree of seriousness for which abstention from communion is appropriate, is a matter of church discipline, not doctrine.
It's not mucking about - the Church really believes this. So, if the Church is right about this, it would be grossly negligent in its care for the faithful if it showed such spiritual and pastoral disregard.
quote:
And to what extent can someone who knows what the Church teaches about marriage and who wants to return to receiving the sacraments whilst continuing in a sexaul relationship with a subsequent spouse really be said to be "wanting to return to the practice of their baptismal faith"?
Practicing one's faith is something a person does. Wanting to practice - to seek to grow closer to God through religious activity - is not at all incompatible with disagreement with Vatican teaching on particular issues.
quote:
Do you really think that the prevalence of couples marrying, divorcing and re-marrying others without the sanction of the Church is not causing scandal to the faithful, i.e., causing a stumbling block to the adherence to Catholic teaching?
The act of divorcing may cause scandal. But once the second marriage is an accomplished fact and time has passed, the act of living each day as Mrs B is unremarkable (even for someone who used some time ago to be Mrs A) and doesn't of itself incite anyone to anything. Ordinary everyday life doesn't cause any gossip...
The difference between Mr and Mrs B sleeping in separate beds as your doctrine would have them do, and having a normal married life, may in any case be largely invisible to the other members of the congregation.
The sin as you see it lies in them not having a piece of paper (called "annulment" or "dispensation"). That's not a public behaviour. Scandal is about people publicly behaving in ways unbecoming to a Christian.
quote:
What do you want the Church to do? Pretend it doesn't believe that a second marriage may very well be adulterous?
I'm not suggesting pretence - quite the opposite. The way forward is for those who think as you do to recognise that the second marriage is a marriage - even though one unsanctioned by the Church, that according to Catholic doctrine Mrs B was wrong to enter into. And that marriage involves the couple having rights of each other and duties to each other - moral responsibilities which (however regrettably) they have taken on and do bind them. The Church should take account of real-life reality as well as sacramental "reality".
Yes, Mrs B's contrition will be imperfect - she cannot wholly regret something out of which good has come. But that's life. I'm sure the Church has pastoral experience of those who regret all that is sinful in what they have done while being unable to regret the good that God has somehow brought out of it.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And I suspect that he hates as much as I do the deliberate use of his pontificate as a stick with which to beat Benedict's. Really, Paul - how edifying is that to anyone?
Well you'll get no arguements from me against the pontificate of Benedict XVI. The greatest theologian of his generation. I supported his Reform of the Reform in liturgical matter, something Francis seems indifferent to. His tireless work for reconciliation with the East, with disaffected Anglicans, and even, though unsuccessful, with the SSPX. A finer Pope we never had!
quote:
originally posted by Russ:
To hold that communion should be open to all would be a change of doctrine. To treat some circumstances of sin as more serious, and some as less serious, than previous practice, and to adjust the degree of seriousness for which abstention from communion is appropriate, is a matter of church discipline, not doctrine.
I agree entirely. Sin isn't always equal. Nor is the level of culpability of remarried divorcees. A woman abandoned with small children, who goes through years of poverty and struggle to bring them up, and 20 years later forms a relationship with a kind, caring man. Whatever the legalism, I don't believe she does anything wrong. Love of God and one's neighbour and living by the golden rule should be our guide to our moral behaviour.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Practicing one's faith is something a person does.
IMO Russ has nailed it here. As someone with a great interest in Christian mysticism, I place practice above belief, devotion above doctrine, mercy above judgement and inclusivism above legalism. Jesus spent his whole ministry fighting the legalism of the scribes and pharisees, who would exclude a ritually unclean woman, who probably suffered from uterine polyps! OK those who divorce have messed up! But they can feel contrition for that. They don't necessarily cause any harm in picking up the pieces of their lives later on.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm assuming the survey questions (mentioned earlier in this thread) are meant to prepare for the topics discussed in the Synod. To skip past the dead horse issues of secular marriage, divorce remarriage and same sex marriage that have been discussed there's a set of questions on instruction of children of those unions.
Does anyone have any idea what the motivation for these questions are assuming there's no change in the policy towards these unions? I have a hard time seeing the "send us your children and we'll tell them your marriage is defective and you should break up" will play well, but it doesn't sound like there's room for any other alternative. Any ideas on how this might be addressed by the synod?
I think I read somewhere that Francis is concerned that children of second marriages grow up never seeing their parents go to confession and take communion, which then reduces the chance that they will regularly participate in the sacraments as adults.
No idea what the solution to this is but I understand the concern.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Though heavily involved in discussions here, I'm going to make an exception to the normal custom and make an straightforward Hosting clarification.
For the record, marriage and divorce are not Dead Horse topics. The DH topics are:
quote:
biblical inerrancy, homosexuality, the role of women in church and Christian households, creation and evolution, abortion, closed communion and bitching about church music.
-see DH guidelines by following the 10C's link.
There has been some discussion re the availability of communion to remarried divorcees. "Closed communion" (a rare Dead Horse these days) is not concerned primarily with communion restrictions based on perceived misconduct but on general denominational policies re non-members or members of other denominations. However, in view of the infrequency of the topic, I will check my perception of that with DH Hosts; meanwhile discussion on that subtopic can continue here.
The thread has steered clear of discussing homosexuality in the context of the coming Synod; please continue to do that.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
To be clear, my meaning wasn't that I perceive the issue around which this thread has come to revolve to be a DH technically (and that's Host business anyway), but rather that the insolubility of the issue amongst the discussants resembles the stand-offs that are defined as DHs. The discussion reveals two opposing ideological positions driven by two different sets of underlying assumptions about the nature of authority in the Judeo-Christian revelation and about the realities of lived human experience and how ecclesiastical authority should properly interface with these human realities. These two opposing positions are hardly unique when it comes to discussions of the definitiveness of various ascribed sources of authority in the Church (scripture, tradition, the magisterium, ex cathedra pronouncement, etc). Frankly, it just seems two irreconcilable views of how things ought to work. For my own part, I can't see how the more rigid approach to authority demonstrates the adaptive capacity needed for institutional and cultural survival on a broad scale.
If this synopsis is found to be cryptic, it is to avoid brutality in the critique.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Lietuvos Sv Kasimieras
Funny, I thought that was probably where you were coming from. Nicely balanced critique, too. Quite close to the hymn sheet I find myself singing off. In my case it's probably about the best way of helping folks who, generally, know they have failed. A man I respect very much said to me about a decade ago that he thought the biggest challenge the church in the UK was facing was finding the right response to those in "irregular relationships, by traditional standards".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The discussion reveals two opposing ideological positions driven by two different sets of underlying assumptions about the nature of authority in the Judeo-Christian revelation and about the realities of lived human experience and how ecclesiastical authority should properly interface with these human realities.
quote:
For my own part, I can't see how the more rigid approach to authority demonstrates the adaptive capacity needed for institutional and cultural survival on a broad scale .
With these comments in mind, I've decided to end my contribution to this thread. There are those who feel that a rigid, legalistic approach to doctrinal purity must be maintained even if it means an ever shrinking Church, and generations lost. IngoB said that the Church doesn't need bums on seats, but faithful Christians. It's a point of view, but one which I don't share. Christianity has moved on and redefined itself many times in history. The Second Vatican Council did just that, hence the schism with traditional groups such as the SSPX. My view is that the Church should find a way to welcome back these lost generations by an act of mercy. It doesn't need to change its belief in the indissolubility of marriage. It just needs to recognise that this is no worse than any other sin heard in the confessional, and doesn't require a lifelong ban on receiving the sacraments. So I hope that the Pope and his Synod will make changes in that direction. But I realise that we are making this into a DH, because it's a subject whose opposing views cannot be reconciled. so I bow out of the discussion!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
To treat some circumstances of sin as more serious, and some as less serious, than previous practice, and to adjust the degree of seriousness for which abstention from communion is appropriate, is a matter of church discipline, not doctrine.
You have skewed idea of the distinction between discipline and doctrine. What do you think discipline is based if not the doctrine of the Church? In this case, the Church would have to stop seeing unrepentant adultery as a serious matter for it to be treated less seriously. You seem to forget that - however wrongheaded you belive the Church to be about this - the Church truly believes that it is on Christ's and the Apostles' teaching on the seriousness of such sin that she builds her teaching. That makes all the difference in the world.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Practicing one's faith is something a person does. Wanting to practice - to seek to grow closer to God through religious activity - is not at all incompatible with disagreement with Vatican teaching on particular issues.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. But what faith? If one one wants to practice the Catholic faith one has to assent to Catholic teaching. Practicing one's own version of that faith - which happens on some serious points to differ with what the Church teaches - is something else altogether. If one wants to return to the Catholic sacraments one has to do so on Catholic terms, i.e., those of the Catholic Church. This all seems glaringly obvious to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The act of divorcing may cause scandal. But once the second marriage is an accomplished fact and time has passed, the act of living each day as Mrs B is unremarkable (even for someone who used some time ago to be Mrs A) and doesn't of itself incite anyone to anything.
The act of divorcing is usually, I think, the least of it. Yes, it's not good and is especialy horrible on the kids, but it doesn't go very far to scandalising people - people on the whole are not much tempted to emulate the pain of divorce in their own lives. Likewise, if divorced people continue to come to Church and receve the sacraments (without a subsequent spouse) I think very few people are led into error and temptation by that, since there's no glaring offense in it. But it is very often difficult for divorced people to live chaste lives thereafter, as the Church requires - which is precisely why chaste divorcees seeing people they know to have been married before now remarried after divorce - particularly if they continue to receive the sacraments - is a scandal to them. They might just assume they have received annulments, of course, but many of them will let it be known that they haven't. And that's a cause of temptation and scandal.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Ordinary everyday life doesn't cause any gossip...
Ha! My mileage definitely varies from yours then.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The difference between Mr and Mrs B sleeping in separate beds as your doctrine would have them do, and having a normal married life, may in any case be largely invisible to the other members of the congregation.
Indeed it may. But again, the chances are that many people will let it be known that they are not sleeping apart - and having kids will tend to be seen as evidence that they are not. Likewise, if an annulment has been granted and the second marriage is recognised by the Church then that too tends to get around, as I know it does with those whom I know who have had previous marriages annulled.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The sin as you see it lies in them not having a piece of paper (called "annulment" or "dispensation"). That's not a public behaviour. Scandal is about people publicly behaving in ways unbecoming to a Christian.
Being married is a public act, and living in the world as a married coule is a matter of public record. If it is unbecoming to remarry after divorce and live as man and wife without having had an annulment, in public defiance of your church's teaching, then that it certainly scandalous.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The way forward is for those who think as you do to recognise that the second marriage is a marriage - even though one unsanctioned by the Church, that according to Catholic doctrine Mrs B was wrong to enter into. And that marriage involves the couple having rights of each other and duties to each other - moral responsibilities which (however regrettably) they have taken on and do bind them. The Church should take account of real-life reality as well as sacramental "reality".
But facts are facts. Granted that you do not believe that the Church is right to believe in indissoluble marriage bonds, nonetheless we're still debating matters of fact. Sacramental reality is a subset of all reality, and if it is true that a couple have been sacramentally married then it is a fact that they are bound by that act in such a way that a subsequent marriage (as opposed to other committed sexual relationship) is impossible and the attempt to contract one wrong. It can hardly be "the way forward" for the Church to accept second marriages if they believe them to be impossible - no matter how much that would please some critics.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Yes, Mrs B's contrition will be imperfect - she cannot wholly regret something out of which good has come. But that's life. I'm sure the Church has pastoral experience of those who regret all that is sinful in what they have done while being unable to regret the good that God has somehow brought out of it.
It's not about regretting good that has come of sin (say the birth of a much loved child) - no-one requires that. It is about deliberately continuing in that state of sin, which precludes any meaningful contrition altogether.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
For my own part, I can't see how the more rigid approach to authority demonstrates the adaptive capacity needed for institutional and cultural survival on a broad scale.
I don't know - although I hope you're wrong. But beyond a certain piont "adaptive capacity" isn't worth having. We can only do what we can do - and if the cost of being able to do more is having to act as if we didn't believe what we genuinely hold to be the truth about such matters, what profiteth it us if we gain the whole world? What would we be gaining the whole world to?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Christianity has moved on and redefined itself many times in history. The Second Vatican Council did just that, hence the schism with traditional groups such as the SSPX.
I'm afraid I think the heart of the problem for the Church is demonstrated very succinctly in those two sentences. It is sentiments such as these that guarantee the SSPX continuing support from Catholics all over the world.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It doesn't need to change its belief in the indissolubility of marriage. It just needs to recognise that this is no worse than any other sin heard in the confessional, and doesn't require a lifelong ban on receiving the sacraments.
I appreciate that you have bowed out here, Paul, but I just can't let this stand. If people are left unchallenged to present the problem in this way then non-Catholics (and many Catholics) will never understand the Church's position.
I have pointed out repeatedly that the problem is not about the magnitude or severity of the sin of remarriage-after-divorce-without-annulment but about whether the sin has been repented of at all. The "lifelong ban on receiving the sacraments" applies to all and any serious sin - but only so long as that sin remains unrepented of. One cannot repent of a sin if one has no intention whatsoever of refraining from committing it. And that is why remarriage after divorce presents such a singular problem to the Church. I asked you how you thought dealing with this problem via the internal forum would work and you declined to answer. Your prerogative.
But complaining that the Church is treating this particular sin as worse than all the others is both misleading and completely missing the point. I really don't think anyone who has read the thread so far has an excuse for continuing to claim that this is what the Church is doing - especially not if he's a Catholic.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
With these comments in mind, I've decided to end my contribution to this thread.
...
But I realise that we are making this into a DH, because it's a subject whose opposing views cannot be reconciled. so I bow out of the discussion!
I can certainly understand and respect that, but I would hope that AFTER the Synod has met and made its pronouncements, you would come back to this or the follow-up thread for the inevitable post-mortem discussion. Further speculation at this point is is probably fruitless, but this is a discussion board and that is what we do!
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The discussion has certainly enlarged my understanding of the issues and the real difficulties facing this Extraordinary Synod.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc, could I ask if you think it is an entirely singular problem ? I wondered if there could be other things where a sin created a situation that one could not straightforwardly reverse if one repented, where new obligations were created which it would also be a sin to break, such that any course of action would be in some way sinful.
What would be the Catholic church's teaching about such a situation ?
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The "lifelong ban on receiving the sacraments" applies to all and any serious sin - but only so long as that sin remains unrepented of. One cannot repent of a sin if one has no intention whatsoever of refraining from committing it.
I decided to bow out because we may be creating a DH by knocking arguements back and forward, but I'll have one last go. I agree with you about sin and repentance. But you can only repent of a sin if you believe you've committed a sin. If you don't feel that your actions are sinful, what is there to repent of? You talk of serious sin in all cases of formerly married people who form a new relationship. I don't agree with that! We all know of people who behave very sinfully towards their spouse, but there is often an innocent party. In a break up, there's very often one partner who doesn't want to break up. If that person, when all hope of reconciliation is gone, perhaps after the passage of much time, forms another relationship, I don't accept that it's sinful to do so. This is why we can't agree. Sin and selfishness are very closely bound in that when I exalt myself over others, then I'm sining. When I live my life with due regard for others, then I'm not sinning. Assuming the abandoned partner gives due consideration to others, especially any children of the relationship, you will never convince me that they have any sin to repent of in forming another relationship. Where there has been sin, repentance for that sin is no different from repenatnce for any sin. We can't turn the clock back and undo the wrongs which led to the break up. By all means we should try while the opportunity exists, but when it's forever gone, I don't believe anyone should be required to live within the prison of that failed relationship for the rest of their life.
quote:
I asked you how you thought dealing with this problem via the internal forum would work and you declined to answer.
With the internal forum, a priest can assess whether the person is living a Christian life, whether they have acknowledged any weakness on their part whoch led to the breakdown of a former relationship, whether they intend to lead a new life walking in the way of Christ. He can say that, if it's necessary to avoid scandal, they must go elsewhere where they're not known to receive the eucharist. Those were the guidelines formerly given for the internal forum.
quote:
However, it would take considerably more than a Synod recommending that remarried divorcees without annulments should on occasion be able to receive Holy Communion to establish any such reversal of teaching.
Earlier in the thread, you wrote this. I don't hope for a reversal of teaching, because it isn't possible. What I hope for is that some remarried divorcees on some occasions should be permitted to receive communion.
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I can certainly understand and respect that, but I would hope that AFTER the Synod has met and made its pronouncements, you would come back to this or the follow-up thread for the inevitable post-mortem discussion. Further speculation at this point is is probably fruitless, but this is a discussion board and that is what we do!
There's all sorts of speculation kicking around in the Catholic press about what this Synod might do. Cardinal elect Mueller says one thing. Cardinal Kasper says another. The Holy Father remains enigmatic! We will ave to see what transpires in October, and I would be happy to continue the discussion with more info to work on.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye Chesterbelloc. There's no way out of this law of the Medes and the Persians. The time is therefore coming when virtually no one will be able to take the Eucharist. Except in Protestant churches and I'm glad to see you're OK with that.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Aye Chesterbelloc. There's no way out of this law of the Medes and the Persians. The time is therefore coming when virtually no one will be able to take the Eucharist. Except in Protestant churches and I'm glad to see you're OK with that.
Why? Around 70% (of the population of the UK at least) are in marriages, whether church or civil, that survive until one partner dies. I don't follow your train of thought here - do you think that this situation will collapse, or have I misunderstood you?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
There is a moral argument which can be made for mercy towards those who are convinced in their own conscience about two things.
1. Their marriage was a sham from the start, because of either duplicity or wilful ignorance on behalf of their partner in taking their vows.
2. The annulment processes as they stand cannot be expected to recognise that opinion held in good faith; nevertheless their opinion is unshaken that that was the reality they experienced.
I think the process known as the "internal forum" solution was designed to recognise that. Here is the relevant extract from the Wiki article.
quote:
The term "internal forum" is sometimes used in connection with the controversial so-called "internal forum solution" claimed to justify reception of Holy Communion by someone who is convinced that a former marriage was invalid, but who cannot prove this externally so as to obtain an annulment. This is not a canonical solution.
Pastoral recognition of such a sincerely held opinion about the marriage does not change the formal state of the marriage as not annulled, and therefore the formal view of the church is that it must remain indissoluble. But it can recognise the possible human imperfections of the annulment process and the possibility of injustice through those imperfections.
I think that is the moral case. Any process designed to test that seems to me to be fraught with difficulty over maintaining any kind of fairness or consistency, even over exceptional rulings.
Paul, I think you are coming down on one side of that argument that there should be some process to test that; Chester, you are on the other. It looks like a close call to me. I'm inclined to side with Chester. I think effort might be better spent in sharpening the annulment processes to reduce the risk of an imperfect decision.
But I am not sure there is a moral absolute in play in judging that argument. There seems to be room to develop the argument.
Dunno, guys; maybe that is a logic-chop too far? And I'm a complete novice outsider in this part of the discussion, so I might be overlooking the obvious. But that's the way it strikes me from the sidelines.
[ 10. February 2014, 08:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Because most Catholics like most everybody else will be divorced.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Most people are not divorced.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You're right, only 45% of marriages (a minority sport in itself) will end in divorce in the UK.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Actually as luck would have it, the ONS has just published a summary of the current position (here) - it's now 42% of all marriages end in divorce, and falling. But bear in mind that includes second and subsequent marriages as well which carry a much higher failure rate.
Somewhere on the ONS website there's a paper addressing survivability of first marriages, which it points out is a fearfully difficult thing to calculate. You can only estimate it, as the only accurate figures come about when one partner dies, and by then all data refer to historic marriages. But assuming my memory is not wrong, the proportion of first marriages predicted as ending in divorce was reckoned to be in the 30%'s - I can't remember the exact figure but I'll take a look tomorrow to see if I can find it again.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Enoch
1. marriage is for all, though there are some restrictions - in some countries you may only be married to one person at a time - in some countries you can only be married to a person of the opposite sex.
The Catholic church also has its rules about marriage and if the conditions are fulfilled then the marriage is classified as a sacramental marriage until it can be shown that it was not.
An extra complication in some countries, including
UK is that a Catholic marriage can also be counted as a marriage recognised by the State.
I can't follow that. So is the difference merely between a Catholic marriage and all other marriages? There's been a suggestion earlier in the thread that the RCC recognises some Protestant marriages.
And are you implying that there can be a marriage that is not legally recognised at all, but is still sacramental and so binding to the RCC? Surely not. quote:
2. 'legalised coupling' is not a helpful way to describe a civil marriage.Some people would not see the legal ceremony as anything to do with 'coupling'. Their 'coupling' can take place independent of any ceremony. In the UK coupling outside of marriage is not illegal.
So what is the status of a civil marriage in the eyes of the RCC then? quote:
3.You have it not got things right - what happens after the ceremony is equally part of the marriage and can affect the validity of the marriage
(None of the sacraments are magic bubbles).
How? Is this something to do with annulment for non-consummation, or is there some other context in which this is relevant? quote:
4.The Church does try to explain to prospective married couple what is meant by Christian marriage
Sorry, but that is not answering my questions. quote:
5.Different rules have governed marriage ceremonies over the centuries.Since the couple are the ministers of the sacrament it has only been fairly recent - I think about 1918, but I may be wrong that a Catholic marriage has to be conducted (normally) in the presence of a minister of the Church.
Yebbut, marital regime is part of most continental legal systems now, today! I'm fairly sure it also applies in the French parts of Canada and the parts of the US that were formerly Spanish. So what has 1918 got to do with this? quote:
6. No
7. Church teaches that the idea of indissolubility of marriage derives from the words of Jesus
It can't just be that, because if so, the RCC would recognise divorce for porneia/sexual misconduct. quote:
I'm not sure how dogmatic indissolubility reduces the dreadful heinousness of adultery nor just how dreadfully heinous adultery is.
Because it gives the impression, and produces the result, that it's all right and civilised for a husband to keep a mistress and a wife a cicisbeo. It strongly suggests that spouses should be expected to tolerate that sort of thing rather than people being horrified by it as in Anna Karenina and much C19 English fiction.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
And you seem to be saying that not all remarried divorcees remain forever in a state of mortal sin. So who decides when their sin is no longer mortal and they can come back to the sacraments?
Some may never have been in the state of mortal sin. This is not really the point. The relevant canon 915 addresses those "who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin". That something is a "grave" sin is an objective judgement, which is irrespective of individual culpability. The question is not whether the person would go to hell if they died this instant (mortal sin), but whether their sin itself is grave (serious, i.e., mortal if they are fully culpable). If it is grave and visible to others (manifest), as well as lasting (obstinate), then the Eucharist must be withheld. Basically the Eucharist is being protected against the participation of those who show themselves to be unworthy of it by public deeds, no matter whether they are doomed by those deeds. See also this Vatican text.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
So the bogeyman of going to eternal hell for remarriage or taking communion when remarried doesn't float my boat.
I would consider this (not the concrete case, but the general attitude) to be a most excellent argument against universalism. One could say that hell must exist and be populated to protect against the likes of you feeling save of all consequence.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Unless you're willing to admit that this system is unwell, the only way to go, which has any integrity, is in the pre-Vatican II direction, as IngoB has suggested. Make annulments as difficult as they were in 1917. Excommunicate all remarried divorcees and consign them to eternal damnation.
Let's be clear that what I have suggested had nothing to do with excommunicating all remarried divorcees. IIRC I made a narrow point about what was stated as the goals of marriage in canon law.
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Do you mean that he ought to do it even if he believes that his first marriage was valid ?
No, he should do it even if he is lapsed, and personally does not believe that the Church has any say in this. He should do it then for his wife rather than in obedience to the Church.
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
My understanding, though, is that if they did it would become part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the church.
It really depends on what they are saying. Most likely, their statement would be of disciplinary and juridical nature, hence not part of the magisterium proper (at least not directly, though it might lead to doctrinal consequences). If they do make a doctrinal statement, then the question would be with what level of authority. Statements belonging to the ordinary magisterium are not per se infallible. However, the indissolubility of marriage is IMHO infallible by the ordinary magisterium, as something that has been taught and affirmed over many centuries. (Teachings can "accumulate" infallibility, so to speak.) The Church cannot simply reverse infallible teaching, and if she does, then she is not the Church and it is time to say bye bye.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Luther or Archbishop Lefebvre. Take your pick! Both Protestants by definition!
Hardly. Fr Hunswicke does a good job here and here in debunking such notions.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I know that those decisions aren't being made on the level at which infallibility supposedly operates, but all the same, my confidence in the ability of the Church to discern truth, including the truth of when she is and is not infallible, is at least a little undermined.
Again, I ask why? We all know and agree that humans cannot possibly be infallible on their own. So their failure to be infallible in fact teaches us nothing new. The question of infallibility concerns necessarily whether God acts in specific ways. And since we all know and agree that God is not acting to make the establishment of marriage infallible, we learn nothing from annulments concerning infallibility.
Given that in the case of marriage the Church essentially only acts as notary, whereas the actual sacrament is being brought about (or not, as it were) by the couple, there can be little surprise that "the Church gets it wrong" often enough in basically believing the couple. And while theoretically the Church could do better in securing the couple's compliance, this would rather quickly turn a joyous occasion into an odious inquisition into intimate affairs. And to be perfectly honest, a bit of naive enthusiasm may well be required to get things going. It is certainly possible to talk people out of marriage with tales of woe and predictions of doom.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And Pope Francis' Extraordinariness is because NO ONE since ... Jesus has tried SO hard, on such a scale, from such a platform of power, to show people what it means to be Christian.
Take that, all you saint and martyrs. Take that, all you bishops of popes. Take that, St Peter, St Paul and all the other apostles. Take that, Blessed Virgin Mary.
Do I hear the sound of distant trumpets?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And it is an injustice which is plainly against God's will.
I really find such statements quite fantastic. It's just as if Jesus (and St Paul explicitly in His name) never spoke most clearly on this matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm not saying it never happens, but I've certainly never heard of a Catholic asking for a declaration of nullity for a marriage which was continuing and happy, purely so that a suspected defect at the time the marriage was osensibly contracted could be corrected. And, if annulments are as commonly available as the quoted opinions would seem to imply, that really ought to be happening all the time.
That's because you are clueless about the actual procedure being employed in such cases. Such problems would be corrected by convalidation or retroactively by radical sanation.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Can anything be done to incentivise valid Catholic marriage?
Powerful incentives have been naturally provided: romantic love, sex, and offspring. What people need to be reminded of is the disincentive to stealing those goods. Hell.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So what exactly are you involved in if you live with someone for 25 years, raise a child, and then have an annulment owing to your partner having kept a lover from before the marriage ceremony ? 25 years of porneia ?
First, I don't think that "keeping a lover" is as such grounds for annulment. Second, yes, sure, it's a kind of sexual misbehaviour. In this case it seems rather clear who is culpable for it though, and who isn't. That one was involved in grave sin does not necessarily imply that one is guilty of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You are lucky with me. Generally, I skim past anything in your posts which strikes me as scornful bullshit, try to get at the substance, try to address that.
After so many years, I still get tricked by that kind of move. Sad.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm quite happy to look at the paper even though it has not been peer reviewed.
The authors say that it was peer-reviewed, but that the editor would not let it pass without them cutting it down to an - in their opinion - unacceptable degree. As editor for several scientific journals, I know that this is an entirely possible (though likely unprofessional) scenario.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What I believe you argue is that harmonisation over marriage doctrine from scripture must be based primarily on what is said in the scriptures which refer to marriage. Indeed, if you do that, there seems precious little doubt from the record that Jesus said "What God has joined, let no man divide".
That, plus the essentially unanimous interpretation of the Church Fathers, and of course the teaching of the Church, settles the issue for me. Sometimes a yea is a yea, and a nay is a nay.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But if you don't want to discuss those, then we'll agree to disagree.
I will agree to no such thing. If you wish to disagree, be it on your head entirely, I accept no share in it.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
When Jesus calls a man or a woman, he bids them come and die. Certainly to self, sometimes even to the cost of our own lives. It is a high calling. Please do not say that Catholics have a corner on that.
That's just evasion. Nobody was saying anything about missionaries, Protestant or otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Where does the doctrine that there are some marriages that are sacramental, and others that are not, come from?
Christ. See his comment on the Jewish situation. St Paul. See his comment what can happen to a marriage if one partner becomes a Christian.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Does that mean that to the RCC a non-sacramental marriage, say, between two agnostics before a Registrar, is no more than legalised coupling?
A marriage is a marriage. A baptism is a baptism. Yet as the baptism of Christ is to the baptism of John the Baptist, so is sacramental marriage to natural marriage. I'm not sure whether John the Baptist allowed re-baptism, but he could have. Yet there is no re-baptism in Christ. Christian can lay natural things before God's feet by His grace, but then there they will remain.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If I've got this right, under RCC doctrine, the crucial question that determines the status of a marriage is what happens at the moment it is entered into. What happens thereafter is largely irrelevant.
Largely irrelevant for the validity of the marriage, yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't it then the duty of the clergy to interrogate married couples about how well they understood what they were doing then, perhaps 40 years ago, and if not satisfied with the answers, to insist they separate? If that is not the case, why not?
You can consider it as a pre-emptive in dubio pro reo (Latin, "when in doubt, for the accused"). The validity of any marriage is questioned only for serious and just cause, typically, when the spouses themselves question it. Remember, the sacrament is in the hands of the couple, the Church acts only as a notary here.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If that invalidates a catholic marriage, as demonstrating the wrong intention, doesn't that invalidate virtually all marriages on the continent of Europe, where it is normal practice for the couple to declare what marital regime they are going to adopt for their property and earnings?
I am from continental Europe (Germany), and quite frankly, I have no clue what you are talking about. Prenuptial agreements are uncommon in Germany, and I'd bet about as frequent as in the UK. Anyhow, if the couple was aware that the Church frowns on prenuptial agreements, and did it anyway, then that may be a sign that the marriage was invalid. If they didn't know, then it would be less of a sign. Then they might have just gone along with what they thought was the done thing, without intending much by it as far as the spirit of their marriage was concerned.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Has this form always been used? If so, wouldn't that also mean that the marriages of landed recusants would have been invalid since they normally involved property settlements?
I don't know. But in general marriages are assumed to be valid unless proven otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Does the doctrine that marriage is indissoluble derive from Jesus's words, ie an incident of marriage, but we'll conveniently leave out asking what porneia means?
It derives from Jesus words, and one common interpretation of the porneia (sexual immorality) clause is precisely that Jesus was talking there about what we would call invalid marriages now. For example, take the case of a brother marrying a sister. That would clearly be a case of "porneia" for the ancient Jews, and this marriage could (and should!) be divorced so as to free both to marry someone else. It was not a licit union of one flesh. One interesting point here is that Matthew does know and use the word "moicheia", which means adultery in a more specific sense, but uses here a word that is more general.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't think that follows if the Christian rule is "don't have sex with anyone unless you have made this sort of irrevocable commitment". If I know that I haven't made the required commitment I'm sinning even if I think that the commitment I have made is enough for me to count as 'married'. Presumably the Catholic Church considers the necessary commitment is an objectively good thing, part of God's direct command, not merely a technical requirement that might be overlooked by accident.
There is a difference between what is sin, and what is not, and whether one is culpable of a sin, or not. If you honestly believe that you are "married enough", then you won't be culpable for not being "married enough". Or to be more precise, you would be guilty only to the extent that you could have avoided being ignorant. So for example if you grew up in a "lax" Catholic environment, where Church doctrine was regularly waved aside, then quite likely you culpability would be very low.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
you have it not got things right - what happens after the ceremony is equally part of the marriage
and can affect the validity of the marriage
(None of the sacraments are magic bubbles).
Sorry, but no. What happens after the ceremony (and consummation...) affects the validity of the marriage only insofar as it may indicate the intentions at the time the marriage was contracted. It is of course entirely possible to ruin a marriage after the ceremony, perhaps even immediately. But this would mean that the graces of marriage where not taken up, not that they were not given. Just like your actions after baptism can never unbaptise you, if you were validly baptised, so one cannot unmarry a sacramental marriage by any means.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
IngoB said that the Church doesn't need bums on seats, but faithful Christians. It's a point of view, but one which I don't share.
The Church is a big tent, but frankly I think not big enough for the both of us. Something needs to give here, and I think it may well still do so in my lifetime.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Christianity has moved on and redefined itself many times in history. The Second Vatican Council did just that, hence the schism with traditional groups such as the SSPX.
No. And no. And no.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So is the difference merely between a Catholic marriage and all other marriages? There's been a suggestion earlier in the thread that the RCC recognises some Protestant marriages.
The RCC recognises all natural marriages as valid until proven otherwise. The RCC recognises all marriages between the baptised as sacramental and valid until proven otherwise. The RCC exercises her right to bind and loosen as far as her faithful are concerned, and binds RCs to marry in a specific manner, making their marriage invalid otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
And are you implying that there can be a marriage that is not legally recognised at all, but is still sacramental and so binding to the RCC? Surely not.
"Legally" in what sense? It is of course possible that two people are married in the eyes of the RCC, but not in the eyes of the state.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So what is the status of a civil marriage in the eyes of the RCC then?
It's a natural marriage. Pretty much the same thing as a sacramental marriage, but breakable, since it is just a human contract.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It can't just be that, because if so, the RCC would recognise divorce for porneia/sexual misconduct.
She does, understood as (sexual) misconduct that can invalidate the attempt to marry.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Pax, IngoB. I won't go any further with fanciful Protestant exegesis on this thread. It's a tangent to the general topic.
[ 10. February 2014, 08:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And to what extent can someone who knows what the Church teaches about marriage and who wants to return to receiving the sacraments whilst continuing in a sexaul relationship with a subsequent spouse really be said to be "wanting to return to the practice of their baptismal faith"?
But why is this different from any other sinner who loves their sin and also loves - in a pathetic and fallen way - Jesus? This is what baffles me - the idea that for the unmarried, or knowingly non-sacramentally married, there is a flagrancy to their sin that is absent from any other kind of sin.
Why is it a more powerful and important sign for someone who loves someone who is not their spouse to exclude themselves from communion than someone who loves money - and repents of this every week, but, say, hasn't given up the habits that encourage avarice?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Enoch
different countries and different cultures have varying ideas about what constitutes a marriage - marriage whilst universal in the general sense takes different forms - in some countries a man can have up to four wives.
There is also the word 'marriage' and a marriage ceremony and there is a specifically Catholic marriage ceremony.
There are relatively few countries nowadays which recognise a Catholic marriage ceremony as legally binding by the state.
In most European countries, for example, only a civil marriage is recognised by the state.
In the case of French citizens only a marriage carried out by a representative of the French republic is recognised by the state.
Although the Catholic church will normally only marry those who are able to marry also under local state law , I have known of exceptional cases where only a religious ceremony was carried out - with no recognition from the state.
In normal circumstances the Catholic church has no difficulty in recognising people's status as 'married' 'single','divorced' etc just as the Church is happy to recognise Barrack Obama as President of the USA.In the case of people who claim to be Catholic, the Church imposes its understanding of marriage upon those who wish to be married according to the rites of the Catholic church.The Church recognises as sacramental ,marriages of other Christians which fulfil the conditions for a Catholic marriage.
Non consummation of the marriage is one of the grounds for annulment,but also a discovery after the marriage ceremony about the status of one of the spouses would also be grounds for annulment.
Was the person the person you thought you were marrying ?
The year 1918 was wrong - I knew it was in the time of Pius X - the Ne temere decree which came into force in 1908. It was a controversial decree,replaced in 1970 by 'Matrimonia mixta'
The controversial parts of Ne Temere regulated the marriage of Catholics with non-Catholics but it also established that a marriage should normally take place in the bride's parish and be
conducted by the parish priest or his delegate.
Jesus said 'What God has joined together,let no man put asunder'
I see no reason why in advocating indissolubility of marriage,the Church is thereby also advocating the keeping of mistresses and cicisbei.
Should the Supreme Governor of the Church of England in the person of Edward VII have undergone several divorces and remarriages in order to enjoy the favours of his many lady friends ?
How was such a heinous adulterer allowed to be the titular head of the Church of England ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Why would they have to take it? I repeat "And Pope Francis' Extraordinariness is because NO ONE since ... Jesus has tried SO hard, on such a scale, from such a platform of power, to show people what it means to be Christian.". That includes Jesus of course. Never in human history.
Neither Jesus or the BVM (PBUH) were on the same scale, had the same power.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Why is it a more powerful and important sign for someone who loves someone who is not their spouse to exclude themselves from communion than someone who loves money - and repents of this every week, but, say, hasn't given up the habits that encourage avarice?
The canon 915 being used here is general, and does not target remarriage exclusively. Anybody "who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" must be excluded from communion. The only thing special thing about the remarried is that their sins are, or at least easily become, manifest. That's so because the Church has documentation of marriage, and most remarried do not try to hide their new relationship from others. Furthermore, there is no way for the remarried couple to stop being obstinate about this grave sin, unless they are willing to have a Platonic relationship. (As mentioned above, "grave sin" is not the same as "mortal sin" - the remarriage is as such grave sin, no matter to what extent the couple can be considered guilty of that sin.)
It is much more difficult for the Church to find out whether someone is simply a good businessman (morally neutral or possibly even good) or avaricious to the point of grave sin. Furthermore, while it may be tedious to have someone come back every week or so to repent of the ever same sin, and while one would assume that pastoral care requires "upping the penitential ante" at some point in such a scenario, in principle there is no limit to such forgiveness. Whereas the remarried couple cannot actually repent of their relationship in the first place (unless they are willing to end it or turn it into a continent one). But if one will not repent then one cannot be forgiven.
That said, I do agree that the remarried are "convenient victims" of canon 915, and I'm far from convinced that the Church is consistent in applying that canon.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Whereas the remarried couple cannot actually repent of their relationship in the first place (unless they are willing to end it or turn it into a continent one).
I think one could sincerely intend to turn it into a continent relationship (or, indeed, the passing of time may turn it into a continent relationship) if "continent" is one that involves no penetrative sex. And it follows from that, that sincere though imperfect repentance is possible. And, therefore, absolution and the return to grace is possible.
But it would be a bit of a bind if one were expected to remark on the continence of one's second marriage at every opportunity to avoid scandalising one's fellow congregants... Perhaps the Church could issue badges?
And ISTM that there is something awfully Older-Brotherish ("him and his women!") about this prurient interest in what the remarried/unmarried are actually getting up to, and how sorry they feel, compared to other sinners. I think you may be, at least partly, agreeing with me there.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think one could sincerely intend to turn it into a continent relationship (or, indeed, the passing of time may turn it into a continent relationship) if "continent" is one that involves no penetrative sex. And it follows from that, that sincere though imperfect repentance is possible. And, therefore, absolution and the return to grace is possible.
The option of declaring yourself as living as "brother and sister" to the parish priest, and then returning to an normal participation in communion, has been there all along. And I assume that there are at least some couples out there who have gone down that path.
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But it would be a bit of a bind if one were expected to remark on the continence of one's second marriage at every opportunity to avoid scandalising one's fellow congregants... Perhaps the Church could issue badges?
I'm not sure how the issue of scandal would be handled by the parish priest. But I do not believe that there is any requirement of a public declaration, much less a requirement to wear some badge (a scarlet 'A' perhaps? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ). In general, I suspect that if the couple is forthcoming enough with information about their state on selected occasions, then it will not take long until "everybody knows about that". The human tendency to gossip can be used for good occasionally...
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
And ISTM that there is something awfully Older-Brotherish ("him and his women!") about this prurient interest in what the remarried/unmarried are actually getting up to, and how sorry they feel, compared to other sinners. I think you may be, at least partly, agreeing with me there.
Sure. Frankly, I have not the first clue about the marital status of anybody at Church (but for some who happen to be personally close outside of Church), and I'd rather not be bothered with that information either. I'm just not sure that I can claim that as being charitable and/or mature. I'm just genuinely disinterested in that sort of thing...
I would say that any interest I could develop in such matters actually would concern the priest, and the actual couple only as "test case" for what the priest is like. I guess that's a bit like siblings watching with eagle eyes whether the parents are "fair".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And it is an injustice which is plainly against God's will.
I really find such statements quite fantastic. It's just as if Jesus (and St Paul explicitly in His name) never spoke most clearly on this matter.
I think we're talking at cross purposes here. You have replied to an intermediate stage in my argument as if it were my conclusion.
Wouldn't you agree that if I were to walk away from my marriage, abandoning my (by ordinary human standards) blameless wife, and enter into a new sexual relationship with someone else, and yet insist that she remain faithful to me, I would be doing her an injustice? Whether or not her obedience to Jesus requires that she endure this injustice is a separate question. My point in making the statement you quote was simply that this sort of behaviour is unfair, and, as far as we can tell from the OT, not approved by God.
I do think (from a liberal Protestant point of view, rather than a Catholic one) that a follower of Jesus is sometimes required to accept injustice, but that doesn't make wrongs right. Jesus seemed to think that sometimes a Christian might have to put up with being punched in the face without retaliation, but that does not, in my view, abrogate the principle that hitting someone in the face is, as a general rule, unjust. Similarly if Christian ethics requires an abandoned spouse to live as if bound by a marriage their partner has repudiated, that does not make the situation any less unjust.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Can anything be done to incentivise valid Catholic marriage?
Powerful incentives have been naturally provided: romantic love, sex, and offspring. What people need to be reminded of is the disincentive to stealing those goods. Hell.
Can we say that the 50% of Catholic marriages (to take the Cardinal's estimate) which are invalid, presumably because of some defect of intention, are actually damnable? I doubt that either of us would be prepared to say that if someone 'marries' without intending the irrevocable-even-if-abused-betrayed-and-abandoned level of total commitment that the Catholic Church requires, then they are going to Hell. The only practical way to get people to make that sort of extravagent promise is to encourage them to approve and desire it as something good and worthy.
I also think (as a liberal) that it is unfair to impose that level of commitment on people who have not freely chosen it. But that's a separate argument. Given that the Catholic Church does in fact have this as its only model of marriage, encouraging people to want and choose it is, in my view, still the best way of getting them to do what the Church says they ought to.
quote:
There is a difference between what is sin, and what is not, and whether one is culpable of a sin, or not. If you honestly believe that you are "married enough", then you won't be culpable for not being "married enough". Or to be more precise, you would be guilty only to the extent that you could have avoided being ignorant. So for example if you grew up in a "lax" Catholic environment, where Church doctrine was regularly waved aside, then quite likely you culpability would be very low.
I would certainly agree with that.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The act of divorcing is usually, I think, the least of it. Yes, it's not good and is especialy horrible on the kids, but it doesn't go very far to scandalising people - people on the whole are not much tempted to emulate the pain of divorce in their own lives. Likewise, if divorced people continue to come to Church and receve the sacraments (without a subsequent spouse) I think very few people are led into error and temptation by that, since there's no glaring offense in it.
That's the bit I find odd and inconsistent about Catholic attitudes when this issue gets discussed. Someone always says something like “it's not divorce that's the issue, it's remarriage”.
I can't understand Jesus' words that way. I don't think the 'no remarriage' rule makes ethical sense viewed that way. I think the only way you get to 'no remarriage' is by stressing 'no divorce'. Jesus did not, in my view, say “let not man separate” primarily to make a theological point about the endurance of a sacramental bond. He was telling men not to divorce their wives. That has to be the focus, in my view. A Christian husband or wife is called to be faithful, to forgive wrongs, to work at being a good partner, to sacrifice their own desires for their beloved, to love, honour and (sometimes) obey, to “love her as the LORD loves the Israelites”*. That's the context. That's the primary emphasis of Jesus' teaching.
Only in a moral paradigm where both parties have that sort of love and commitment as their aim does it make sense for them to vow that their marriage is irrevocable under any circumstances. The commitment 'We will not divorce' must be in place before the '...because we cannot remarry if we do' is bearable.
I'm not saying that an individual Christian cannot be divorced without being at fault (it only takes one person to walk out) – but if both partners are trying to be true to a Christian standard of marriage, divorce should be a real problem. The man who has left his wife (absent abuse and the like) and refuses to return to her is as much or more an unrepentant sinner as the abandoned spouse who remarries.
(*it isn't just a New Testament standard)
[ 10. February 2014, 20:58: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Just to say that I set up a separate thread in Kerygmania to look at the key gospel verses and hopefully, do a bit of group exegetics. It struck me after some exchanges here that there might be some value in doing that in a different discussion environment to this one.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Adultery is not a "victimless crime". If MrB has an affair with Mrs A, then Mr A is the wronged party. Mr B has in effect stolen something from his neighbour. And Mrs A has betrayed a trust. If you say adultery is a grave or serious sin, most Christians will agree.
Conversely, if Mrs A is the largely-innocent party in a failed marriage, and after a decent interval she meets and then contracts a civil marriage with Mr B, then there is in that remarriage no victim, no theft (picking up what someone else has chosen to discard is not stealing) and no dishonesty - they are openly declaring to the whole community their new status in accordance with the law of the land.
So there seems to me something not right in any argument that relies on defining remarriage as technically a form of adultery and then concluding that the Church's response to remarried people should be the response appropriate to adulterers.
It's almost another form of philosophical error. Like banning dogs because they bark and then prosecuting someone for having a dog which doesn't bark because it's Against The Rules.
Chesterbelloc mentioned something about loving a child conceived in adultery, and not having to regret the child or give up the child or order to repent of the wrongness of the action. Neither the sin nor the repentance takes away the duty to care for the child.
Similarly, I'd argue that a remarried Catholic can repent of the wrongness of having failed to keep their original sacramental marriage vow. Without having to regret or give up the new relationship. And neither the wrongness nor the repentance takes away the duty to care for the new spouse.
Here in Ireland, there has been some discussion of the film Philomena - the fact that the old-fashioned style of Catholic morality did take children away from unmarried mothers and did lock the mothers up in institutions for their grave sin.
The Church has changed and will continue to change. But somehow for the conservatives in the Church, every past change was a change in non-essentials, in practice or discipline but never in teaching. But when it comes to proposed future change, we're told that the practice reflects the doctrine and can't be disentangled from it.
If there's a will, there's a way.
Best wishes,
Rusd
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Adultery is not a "victimless crime". If MrB has an affair with Mrs A, then Mr A is the wronged party. Mr B has in effect stolen something from his neighbour. And Mrs A has betrayed a trust. If you say adultery is a grave or serious sin, most Christians will agree.
There are some additional assumptions being made here in order to argue that the non-Catholic understanding of adultery always and everywhere has victims. What if Mr A has agreed to have an open marriage with Mrs B? In that case, Mrs A presumably hasn't betrayed Mr A's trust, at least in the usual sense. And yet, many Christians will agree that the As have sinned and failed to act consistently with the Christian notion of marriage. And the Catholic Church would certainly withhold communion from Mr B and Mrs A if they were to move in together and thus make manifest their sin.
Catholic morality long predates the harm principle, and if you accept that an action is wrong if and only if it results in a direct and proximate victim, you'll have to throw out large chunks of Catholic morality.
quote:
Here in Ireland, there has been some discussion of the film Philomena - the fact that the old-fashioned style of Catholic morality did take children away from unmarried mothers and did lock the mothers up in institutions for their grave sin.
The Church has changed and will continue to change. But somehow for the conservatives in the Church, every past change was a change in non-essentials, in practice or discipline but never in teaching. But when it comes to proposed future change, we're told that the practice reflects the doctrine and can't be disentangled from it.
Unless you're actually claiming that Catholics used to think Magdalen laundries were unchangeable doctrine, I'm not sure what the point of this example is.
[ 10. February 2014, 23:53: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So there seems to me something not right in any argument that relies on defining remarriage as technically a form of adultery and then concluding that the Church's response to remarried people should be the response appropriate to adulterers.
It's almost another form of philosophical error. Like banning dogs because they bark and then prosecuting someone for having a dog which doesn't bark because it's Against The Rules.
Sorry for the double-post, but it also occurs to me that this pseudo-adultery, which Catholics allegedly confuse with adultery but which is really another beast entirely, is described straightforwardly as adultery in Matthew 5:32.
That said, I think this goes to the heart of the difference in the way the disputants here are framing the issue:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:Chesterbelloc mentioned something about loving a child conceived in adultery, and not having to regret the child or give up the child or order to repent of the wrongness of the action. Neither the sin nor the repentance takes away the duty to care for the child.
Similarly, I'd argue that a remarried Catholic can repent of the wrongness of having failed to keep their original sacramental marriage vow. Without having to regret or give up the new relationship. And neither the wrongness nor the repentance takes away the duty to care for the new spouse.
A lot of non-Catholics seem to see the sin here, if any, as a single act, beginning either the breakup of the previous marriage or the start of the remarriage. Eventually these events fade into the past and are repented of, as with other types of sin, and it seems perverse to withhold communion from the remarried couple. Viewed from this standpoint, the Catholic theory that the remarried couple are sinning anew every time they sleep together appears to miss the forest for the trees. Which, I think, suggests that the Catholic position depends on a broader theory of Catholic sexual ethics, which in turn is why these biblical proof-texts aren't convincing anyone.
[ 11. February 2014, 03:06: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Adultery is not a "victimless crime". If MrB has an affair with Mrs A, then Mr A is the wronged party. Mr B has in effect stolen something from his neighbour. And Mrs A has betrayed a trust. If you say adultery is a grave or serious sin, most Christians will agree.
Conversely, if Mrs A is the largely-innocent party in a failed marriage, and after a decent interval she meets and then contracts a civil marriage with Mr B, then there is in that remarriage no victim, no theft (picking up what someone else has chosen to discard is not stealing) and no dishonesty - they are openly declaring to the whole community their new status in accordance with the law of the land.
So there seems to me something not right in any argument that relies on defining remarriage as technically a form of adultery and then concluding that the Church's response to remarried people should be the response appropriate to adulterers.
But surely nobodies lives and marriages are such simple hypotheticals, nor that posited by Eliab ("it only takes one to walk out").
Surely a person who refuses physical and emotional intimacy with their spouse while continuing to live in the same house as them commits as serious a sin as the person who walks away. Though in both cases (the physically present, spiritually withdrawn, and the physical abandoner) we would still wonder what has led to that pass, rather than simply say that one is the guilty party?
It vexes me that the Church's measure of grace in a marriage should either be, or be perceived to be, based on compliance rather than principle.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Which principle predominates. Erroneus Monk?
The Orthodox, who are people of principle and Tradition too, think that the predominant principle is economia, i.e. that a literal interpretation should be mediated by the spirit and by charity.
One of the ironies of this debate is that Jesus was correcting various literal and legalistic interpretations in his time by asserting that they missed the point of God's original intentions for humanity, pre-Fall. As a result, many argue that we therefore have a new law to be applied without concession post Fall, regardless. I see how you get there, but the outcome looks to me like a legalistic application of principle!
It is easy to accuse the Orthodox of vagueness, even trimming. But do they not have a point of principle here? Economia is not pragmatism in recognising the dangers of Christian legalism. Does it not point to Grace? I think this is why it strikes a chord with me.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Which principle predominates. Erroneus Monk?
I'm an auditor, so when I think of compliance versus principle, I'm thinking of an approach that is all to do with ticking off a checklist, rather than taking substantial actions that change behaviour/outcomes.
it seems to me that in relation to questions such as what is grave sin against a marriage, what is an adequate level of repentance, what is the required outward sign of that repentance, we and the Church tend to use a compliance checklist - because we *can* - see references above to the evidence trail created by marriage, divorce, remarriage etc.
But one could comply with the checklist in full and live an unloving life in substance - e.g. make life hell for one's spouse while remaining physically faithful and constantly present.
And - continuing to talk in the language of the office, forgive me - the fact that one can remain in communion by complying with the checklist, and without making the effort in substance to live out a marriage of love (and no, I don't mean romantic love, or great sex, but compassion and care) seems to me to be a perverse incentive.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Wouldn't you agree that if I were to walk away from my marriage, abandoning my (by ordinary human standards) blameless wife, and enter into a new sexual relationship with someone else, and yet insist that she remain faithful to me, I would be doing her an injustice?
But you are not insisting that she remains faithful to you, or if you are, then you are being ridiculous. The whole problem here is that people think of marriage as a voluntary arrangement between two people, and then parse everything as demands and duties of those people in that arrangement. It is that, of course, naturally. The whole point of Catholic teaching is however that Christ turned marriage into a sacramental state that can be built up between two people. Most people (I guess...) do accept that one cannot be "unbaptised", even if one entirely ignores Christ or perhaps explicitly sets one's will against Him. Baptism, naturally speaking, is a voluntary act of repentance and dedication. But as sacrament it becomes a state of being. One becomes a Christian, in roughly the way one is a human being. There is afterwards no more possibility to become a non-Christian. One can become a terribly bad Christian, and lose each and all outer characteristics of a Christian life. But one cannot change fundamentally what one has become, whatever one does has now a new reference point, that one belongs to Christ. In a similar way, in making marriage a sacrament of the union of one flesh, Christ has established a state change, but between two people not one. (Hence death of one spouse can part marriage, the state change includes both.) So what binds your suffering wife is not that she has any remaining duties to you. Obviously you have forfeit all rights by your actions as a person. What binds her is simply that she is, and will always remain, married to you. She is in a state that she cannot get out of, except for the death of one of you. And her own actions are measured against that state, not against you.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I do think (from a liberal Protestant point of view, rather than a Catholic one) that a follower of Jesus is sometimes required to accept injustice, but that doesn't make wrongs right.
That's not the right perspective. The spouses do not have to accept any injustice from each other. That's precisely why spouses can separate (civilly divorce) even though this actually rejects precisely the promises made to each other in a practical sense. What you cannot do is to change what you are. Namely, married to that person. If you wish to connect your state back to its proper practice, then you have to "accept injustice", or to put it more nicely, you have to forgive. It's perhaps a bit like a fixed light in a room. You can switch it on, then there is light. You can switch it off, then there is dark. Your choice. What you cannot however do is to have that light shine in another room. The light installation is fixed, the cables are in these walls, they are not elsewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Can we say that the 50% of Catholic marriages (to take the Cardinal's estimate) which are invalid, presumably because of some defect of intention, are actually damnable?
Certainly we can say this. What we cannot say with similar clarity is who will receive how much condemnation for this before God.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I doubt that either of us would be prepared to say that if someone 'marries' without intending the irrevocable-even-if-abused-betrayed-and-abandoned level of total commitment that the Catholic Church requires, then they are going to Hell.
I'm definitely prepared to say that a Catholic playing fast and loose with marriage commitments is drastically increasing their chances to go to hell. I do not believe that "going to hell" is a rare event that only applies to people commanding genocide while raping children, or some such. I'm not sure that I agree with the traditional estimate that most people will go to hell. But that's because under many layers of cynicism I'm a rather optimistic guy who has a basic trust that all things will work out OK somehow (having a good childhood does that to you). It's not something I can defend from scripture or tradition.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The only practical way to get people to make that sort of extravagent promise is to encourage them to approve and desire it as something good and worthy.
Nope. That's a losing because idealistic proposition. People want romantic relationships, sex and offspring. Very much. They need to be convinced that there is only one safe way of getting those. That's all. Of course it will be a horrible muddle, and always has been, but that's just how people are. The idea that one can sell "sacramental marriage" as an ideal to the masses is just batshit. It's never going to work. First, only a small fraction of population is driven by idealism. Idealism gets big only in waves of mild insanity - you can base revolutions on that, but not steady governance. Second, mostly it's the young who get caught up in idealism easily. And it's rather problematic to play their naivety towards getting them married. Third, nothing kills idealism faster than living together day by day. Except perhaps for having kids. I'm not quite sure what to call the engine of stable families, but it sure as heck isn't idealism. More something like loving just-do-it-ism.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I also think (as a liberal) that it is unfair to impose that level of commitment on people who have not freely chosen it.
Since marriages not freely chosen are invalid, I don't know what you are talking about. Unless you are complaining about not being able to freely chose what the word and Christian life is like. That's a common complaint, see the endless bitching in the bible, which however has never changed anything (except the person bitching, who might get it out of their system at some point).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
